A growing contradiction at Ingraham High

School expansion plan latest to run afoul of city and state goals to increase tree cover

By LISA STIFFLER, P-I REPORTER

Published 10:00 pm, Friday, March 28, 2008

Photo: Dan DeLong/Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Image 1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

Ingraham High School neighbor Steve Zemke is working to block removal of 80 trees that would be cut to make way for construction at the North Seattle school.

Ingraham High School neighbor Steve Zemke is working to block removal of 80 trees that would be cut to make way for construction at the North Seattle school.

Photo: Dan DeLong/Seattle Post-Intelligencer

A growing contradiction at Ingraham High

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

Just as state lawmakers were voting earlier this month for new rules to protect urban trees, the Seattle School District was taking comments on plans to fell more than 80 mature trees at Ingraham High School.

The trees are coming down to make room for needed classrooms. But neighbors wonder why the construction can't be shifted to a large grassy space just around the corner, sparing the towering cedars and firs.

"How many places in the city do we have groves of trees like this?" asked Steve Zemke, who lives near the school in North Seattle. "These trees look pretty healthy and have years to go yet."

The battle at Ingraham is the latest fight over construction that includes the felling of dozens of big trees, an act that seemingly runs counter to city and state goals to increase tree cover for its environmental, economic and health benefits.

Neighbors and tree lovers have protested trees coming down in the Maple Leaf neighborhood where land owned by Camp Fire was sold to developers. They objected to tree removal near Greenwood Avenue North where old homes and parking lots are being turned into shops and housing.

The disputes often become emotional -- people grow attached to majestic, decades-old trees, while developers and designers aim for profitable, high-density projects to serve growing populations.

Last year, Mayor Greg Nickels released the Urban Forest Management Plan, which aims to increase tree cover from 18 percent to 30 percent in 30 years.

An Emerald City Task Force was convened and in December released its tree-saving recommendations. Now the city is reviewing and updating its tree regulations, which offer weak protections.

Trees are valued for providing habitat to birds and other animals, controlling stormwater runoff, helping fight climate change and cleaning the air.

But while city leaders say they want to save trees, those critical of the Ingraham plan wonder if Seattle Public Schools missed that message.

David Tucker, district spokesman, said they'd like to preserve as many trees as possible, but it's not their primary mission.

"Our focus has to be what is going to best assist those students in progressing academically," Tucker said.

If the building was built on the nearby grassy site as some suggest, classroom daylight would be lost, more open space would be eliminated because the proposed two-story building would be spread over one story, and the addition would be much closer to the street. It also would cost more.

To make up for the lost trees, the district will plant hundreds of new trees, though critics note that a spindly young maple can't reproduce the environmental benefits of a mature fir. About 22 of the 84 trees being removed were deemed unhealthy.

Ron English, Seattle Public Schools' environmental officer, signed off on the draft environmental review of the project, determining it "will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment."

Neighbors challenged that assertion during a comment period ending March 19. They're also upset over feeling excluded from the planning process -- a frequent complaint in construction projects undertaken by the school district.

"This is public money. It's tax dollars," Zemke said. "We should have a voice."

Two community members were included on the Ingraham design team, which began meeting in July. The first public meeting on the proposed construction was held in March, and more are scheduled for April and May. Construction, however, is slated to begin this summer.

The planning process in Maple Leaf and Greenwood has included more public input, but frustrations persist.

The proposed Maple Leaf development would save about one-third to a half of the 104 trees on site (depending on whom you ask), including part of a grove dubbed Waldo Woods. Parking for the planned 39 single-family and duplex homes would be underground, and native trees and plants would be part of the landscape.

In Greenwood, some massive Lombardi poplars and many other trees already are gone. But the development also is removing a sea of parking spaces, installing porous sidewalks and driveways to reduce stormwater runoff, and restoring a small wetland area.

Conservationists want developers, the city and the district to think more creatively to save more trees. They worry that even when trees are preserved, often they will be lost in time due to damage in construction or in windstorms as the protection of groves is whittled away.

"By the time the city gets around to dealing with this conundrum, Waldo Woods and the trees at Ingraham are going to be cut down and you can't replace them," said Janice Camp, secretary of the Maple Leaf Community Council. "There needs to be a moratorium."